« London Calling, December 15th | Main | UEFA chicken out... thankfully! »
December 15, 2004
It's simply a bad idea!
When UEFA's Executive Committee meets tomorrow, it is expected to endorse proposals which will limit both the number of "non-homegrown" players in a first-team squad and the overall squad size and submit them to UEFA's next full Congress in April.
Knowing that there's no way around the EU's Bosman Ruling (which enforced the free movement of labour throughout the EU), UEFA has taken a different tack this time around, suggesting that a club will be forced to include at least eight "homegrown" players in the first-team squad. Being "homegrown" means that the player would have to have come up through the club's (or nation's) academy, but doesn't mean that the player has to be of the same nationality of the club itself. The proposals will also limit a club's first-team squad to a total of 25 players (the same number of players that a club submits as "eligible players" if they compete in the UEFA Champions League) in order to ensure that a club can't simply leave these "homegrown" lads on the bench or even off the subs list for a game.
UEFA argues that adopting these proposals would "level the playing field", "enhance a team's local reputation", "protect young players from abuse by big clubs" and help "protect and help develop national teams" and insists that the changes would ensure the continued success of The Beautiful Game. But is this really so?
For one, I don't see a threat to the game from success, nor do I believe that a "level playing field" is necessarily a good idea. For example, American Football's (yeah, the pointy ball kind) governing body - the NFL - decided to implement a salary cap for teams a long time ago in an attempt to level the playing field and limit the success of the dynastic teams of the day (for example, the 40-whiners and the Cowboys). The result of this change was indeed a levelling of the playing field; trouble was that it led to a levelling at a lower level than it had been previously. The game now is acknowleged as being more boring and prohibits much long-term success - after all, as your team gets more successful your wage bill increases exponentially, requiring you to cut expensive players and bringing you back to the same level as other teams, prohibiting your continued long-term success.
Now I realise that we're not talking salary caps here, but my analogy in some way demonstrates that a level playing field may not be at all desirable nor, in my opinion necessary. Maybe I'm too England-centric, but I don't see that the influx of foreign players (and the obvious disparity between the number of such players in the top and bottom of the League pyramid) has either reduced competition in the League or prevented teams from progressing within the League system. Many people point to the dominance of Manchester United and Arsenal in the Premier League as an example of this imbalance and insist that these proposals would help solve that "problem", but was it foreign players that led to Arsenal's dominance of the League in the 1930s, or Liverpool and Everton's lock-up of the title in more recent times or even, for that matter, United's dominance of the League in the 1990s (when their team was in fact based around a core of "homegrown" players? The English League is cyclic and teams will always have periods of great success, and periods of mediocrity and failure (well, except for The Gunners who've haven't been relegated since they rose to Division One in 1919 and haven't finished below 12th in the top flight for a very long time now :-)). It's also unfair to say that the difference in quality between the top and bottom teams is simply the fact that the top teams are hiring foreign players. Admittedly, they are hiring the best foreign players, but it may surprise you to check out, for example, Exeter City's squad and see how many of them have come from other countries. None of these rule changes would alter this, but it would have an immediate negative effect on the transfer market, probably pricing the top foreign-born players (and the best English players in England) out of the reach of all but the richest clubs - probably the opposite effect that UEFA are aiming for.
Another side effect of limiting the number of players who can go to the clubs who right now have the big cheque books is that it will reduce the money flow to less successful teams who are breeding this new talent in their academies. Several clubs have saved themselves from bankruptcy, or provided funds to allow them to improve several positions in their squads with the sale of a promising youngster to a bigger club. Although this would obviously continue, the amount of cash they would be bringing in from such sales would probably decrease dramatically, reducing their ability to increase their own competitiveness.
UEFA's second claim that the proposals would "enhance a team's local reputation" is interesting (UEFA bizarrely believes that "that homegrown players are important to maintain the connection between a club and its fans"). I wonder where they got the idea that this was needed in the game. Again, I may be coming at this from a English perspective, but I don't see that Arsenal's (or any other club's) local reputation is harmed or reduced by virtue of the presence of a large number of foreign players. Then again, much of a team's new local support is built from generations of previous support within a family or a neighbourhood and is pretty much guaranteed as long as the club exists (except in rare situations where they completely screw their fans - as Wimbledon, sorry the MK Dons, did a couple of years ago). Most clubs are looking to increase their non-local support, hoping that by doing so they can increase their revenue, in order to improve facilities and buy new talent (either when they're young, to develop a player, or from other clubs to improve the overall quality of the squad). I've never heard an argument from a fan that they'd support their club more, or choose to support one particular club simply because it has more players from that club's academy - and remember that the rules won't ensure that more Londoners get into, for example, Arsenal's academy. In fact, it's more likely under these rules that clubs with good scouting organisations will look abroad for the best talent and bring them into the academy - perhaps even displacing the local talent that UEFA claims to support so much.
The silliest arguments are that the proposals will "protect young players from abuse by big clubs" and help "protect and help develop national teams". Since, as I've already pointed out, the rules do not insist that a homegrown player has to be born in the same country as the club, these changes are unlikely to reduce the demand for promising youngsters. In fact, it will result instead in many of these youth players ending up being unable to fulfill their promise after being rejected by all the top teams who've filled their quotas, leaving them to play for mediocre teams that may be less able to develop their talent - let's not forget that there is a big difference in training facilities and staff between the top teams and the less successful ones. One UEFA statement even included the ridiculous claim that the German team in EURO 2004 found it difficult to find a striker "because 65 per cent of the attackers in that country were not German"... no, no, no... it was difficult for Germany to find strikers because they hadn't produced any decent ones for a while. This has nothing to do with the number of foreign attackers in the Bundesliga. After all, France has a fine strike force, yet none of their main ones play in France and a lot of the strikers in the Premier League are foreign, yet England could call on Owen, Smith, Rooney and Defoe - not to mention all the youngsters who are on the cusp of an England cap.
Let's examine what effect these proposals would have on the current Arsenal first-team squad. Right now we have 37 players who are included - and have played some part, 22 in the League, a similar number in Europe and the rest who've played against Premier League opposition in the League Cup and FA Community Shield.
The rules would limit the squad size to 25 and the number of non-homegrown players to 17. Only Ashley Cole and Justin Hoyte are academy graduates who've played in the League, so it's easy to work out that three of the other players who appeared in the EPL for Arsenal would never have got the chance under the new rules. Who would we have dropped? Cygan for one I guess, but who would have filled in for Sol when he was injured? Would Dennis have been given a contract extension if the new rules had been in place? I doubt it... who would we not have bought, or not have put in the first squad to provide his place? How would you ever give a chance to a promising youngster who is unproven under the new rules which limit the squad to 25 players. You can't put them out in meaningless League Cup games to give them a chance, after all, you'd pretty much be stuck with them in League games too - unless you simply dropped them and replaced them with another, perhaps more promising player... effectively ending their career with the club (and when and how could you change who's eligible and who's not... for example, the Champions League only allows a limited change, once, of who is in that 25-man eligibility list).
Immediately out of the squad would be Sebastian Svard, Danny Karbassiyoon, Johan Djourou, Olafur-Ingi Skulason, Artuo Lupoli and Jeremie Aliadiere. None of them came through the academy, nor would they displace any of our regular starters. You can also lose three of the actual academy graduates from the first-team list (I'm sort of presuming that Stack's gone anyway). Ash, Hoyte and Pennant would obviously be in, but who would you drop from Chris Wright (GK), Michael Jordan (GK), Ryan Garry (D), Philippe Senderos (D), Gael Clichy (D), Ryan Smith (M), Jordan Fowler (M), Sebastian Larsson (M), Quincy Awusu-Abeyie (S) or John Spicer (S)?
Even were these proposals accepted, they would have little effect on our starting line-up (except as noted above, to reduce the possibility that the club would take a chance on retaining someone like Bergie or hiring someone like Senderos). The changes would however mean that the number of youth players making the first-team squad would probably be limited to a subset of the eight "homegrowns" allowed. After all, with 17 non-homegrown players allowed, you would want all of these to be experienced and able to fill in for the regular starters without impacting your club's chances of challenging for top honours. Why would you bother putting Quincy Owusu-Abeyie in the squad when you could get an experienced, proven striker instead? Maybe you might, but I really don't see it myself...
The cynical side of me suggests that the real reason UEFA are pushing these proposals is to reduce the power of the G-14 (a grouping of some of the most successful European clubs, which includes Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United from England), who they regard as a threat to their authority and also, by virtue of the limited squad size, further their (and FIFA's) ambitions to reduce the number of fixtures in a season - and thus, assuredly, reduce the size of a League to sixteen teams. I could be wrong but, in any case, UEFA are encouraging fans to have their say in an online survey. Take it (it's pretty quick to complete) and have your voice counted... I certainly have!
Posted by gcurtis at December 15, 2004 10:48 AM
Comments
Very well said! (Survey has been taken!!)
Posted by: Blue Mike at December 15, 2004 02:44 PM
I for one would not welcome these changes as it restricts freedom of movement. I personal do not care if Arsenal was filled with men from Mars as long as we had a successful team. I once had the feeling that i wanted at least 5 home grown players in the side but what makes a home grown player? When I see Clichy playing for us does he play with less pride than Ash, No.? Its how a club brings a player up that gives him that sense of feeling.
As for local pride what do they want, that we only play players who live in Islington because London is a big place and North Londoners would say that South Londoners are as foreign as someone from France or Germany? What next, you can only support the team from the town you come from or each team can only play 4 players over 6 feet. UEFA live in the past and would not last 5 minuets in the real business world.
Football was once such a simple game.
Great article by the way Graham.
Posted by: teabag at December 16, 2004 05:38 AM